Active Member

I couldn't give you a percentage but the difference from bog standard RGB to progressive DVI (nearly HDMI!) is dramatic.

I am not a picture expert as some on the forum and I would love to give you some officious terminology but in laymans terms!!

I have Sky + through RGB my old DVD (also connected through RGB) although gave a better picture, up close to the screen I could see 'noises' around some movement which related to say the best quality Sky Movie channels.

The improvements I have seen with DVI has done away with those noises for a brighter, much sharper picture as if to wipe the screen clean again.

I am sorry I can't tell you about component as I don't have the cable to view this way.

In conclusion my expectations have been lived up to if that is anything to go by!!

Active Member

Hoping to upgrade to a plasma towards the end of the year so my question was whether it was worth paying the extra £300 for a DVD player with HDMI as to one with progressive scan, is the difference in picture quality worth the extra cash?

Banned

It depends on the plasma.... your plasma may not have hdmi for a start. Standard prog scan may be enough, the benefit of HDMI is that it is digital and gives alot of scope for different resolutions. For instance, the panasonic plasmas yet wouldnt benefit from using the hdmi 'type' interface. Im intent on getting one of these plasmas and will not be using a digital connection, rather I will use component which is probably what you are thinking of when you say prog scan.

Apologies if this sounds useless, but im not sure you follow the terminology.

Active Member

Thanks, Buns. The plasma is a possibility towards the end of the year. I didn't want to buy a DVD player now and then regret it later. The choices were narrowed down to two Arcam models, the 89 and 79. If the difference between progressive scan and HDMI isn't all that great then it wouldn't judstify the extra expenditure.
Cheers

Banned

Unfortunately that is almost impossible to answer. Until we hear about those who have tried the dv79, we wont know what options it will leave open, whether it will be compatible with any specific plasmas..... you know?

If it were my money, id get the dv89 for now (can be had for £599 at creative audio) and then worry about the hdmi later. If you decide you want the benefits that hdmi would bring, you can always invest in an external scaler that would do dvi instead..... this implementation will be every bit as good and in many ways better than hdmi from a dvd player. This route is pretty much the one I am using.

Active Member

Buns,
Again, thanks for taking the time to help my decision making. However, I'm somewhat more confused than before, I'm new to the HDMI/progressive scan options. Can you give me some idea what," you can always invest in an external scaler that would do dvi instead..... this implementation will be every bit as good and in many ways better than hdmi from a dvd player" means and what kind of cost would be involved?
Many thanks again.

Active Member

Originally posted by VistaVision Thanks, Buns. The plasma is a possibility towards the end of the year. I didn't want to buy a DVD player now and then regret it later. The choices were narrowed down to two Arcam models, the 89 and 79. If the difference between progressive scan and HDMI isn't all that great then it wouldn't judstify the extra expenditure.
Cheers

Click to expand...

I tried to demo a Arcam 79 yesterday in Seven Oaks (Leeds), they havent got them yet

If anyone knows where I can demo one around the Notts area would be great

My f l i c k r photostream.
Camera and some glass that goes on the front of it. Oh, and some of those thing's that make short bursts of light.

Banned

HDMI is a digital interface, that is the biggest thing going for it. It means that signals dont need converted to analogue and the assocoiated degradation does not occur. Now HDMI is an audio and video interface, so, in time, it will do audio as well (it cant yet). The video side of hdmi is pretty much the same as dvi (which is the familiar computer interface). There are minor differences, but for the purposes of this, consider them the same but with a difference connector. So basically dvi offers the same benefits as offered by hdmi. You could get a player with a dvi output, such players do exist.

In using a player alone, the player itself is doing all the work. The signal is taken from the disc, processed, deinterlaced and scaled if necessary, processed then output. Now the deinterlacing and scaling are very important if you are using an advanced display since these are what takes your signal from being interlaced to being progressive. As you can probably guess, the hardware for doing this isnt necessarily simple or cheap. Within an integrated dvd player, there will be a limited amount of money invested here hence there will be limitation in the picture. So ideally you want a solution which uses very good deinterlacing and scaling. This is often found in an external video processor (like the lumagens mentioned). So what you do is take the signal from a standard dvd player and connect in one way or another to the lumagen. It can take analogue or digital inputs. The lumagen then does the complicated processing and outputs via dvi (if you want - it can do analogue as well which I intend to use).

You need to remember that hdmi/dvi on its own doesnt necessarily equal quality. There are many other factors and there will be occasions when using an analogue RGB type signal (this can also do progressive signals) will be better. Often the only way of knowing which way is best is to try it yourself.

Active Member

One small comment, if you're buying the player to use its digital output don't fooled into going for the more expensive one without demoing against a cheaper model, and when you do this do it as a blind test if possible (best if you get a freind to keep an eye on the sales person when they do the swapping as well, but hey, that's just me be paranoid!).

Banned

Originally posted by JohnWH One small comment, if you're buying the player to use its digital output don't fooled into going for the more expensive one without demoing against a cheaper model, and when you do this do it as a blind test if possible (best if you get a freind to keep an eye on the sales person when they do the swapping as well, but hey, that's just me be paranoid!).

John.

Click to expand...

BUT..... sound is something to consider. Although picture may be similar, sound likely wont. Ive upgraded a top notch panasonic sdi player for an arcam. In honesty im not expecting a better picture, but i do expect vastly better sound.

Active Member

Originally posted by buns BUT..... sound is something to consider. Although picture may be similar, sound likely wont. Ive upgraded a top notch panasonic sdi player for an arcam. In honesty im not expecting a better picture, but i do expect vastly better sound.

ad

Click to expand...

Might be about to start a conversation I think we've had before, my view is that if you blind tested it you wouldn't be able tell the difference given the use of the digital interface, unless the arcam is messing with the audio in some way that you happen to like i.e. not faithfully reproducing the sound. Formovie play back its even more doubtfull that there any difference in sound reproduction.

Of course someone is welcome to prove to me that I'm wrong, that way I'll stop moaning about spending money on products with questionable value and just get on with enjoying the result!

Banned

Well you can probably guess I dont subscribe to that view. Quite simply, from a technical standpoint, a transport is NOT a transport. They make a distinct difference in data extraction so there is such a thing as a better transport. Fair enough the digital after circuitry may not be distinguishable from budget to premium player but if you limit what you give to this circuitry, then you limit the output.

My gf has unknowingly blind tested to prove this point for cd replay between my cd player and panasonic dvd player both fed spdif to a meridian processor. She wont even listen to a cd through the panasonic now..... 'a shame it sounds so bad cos its much nicer than the cd player'

Active Member

As I said we've had the conversation on the impact of transport quality before, don't either of our positions have changed.

Interresting enough I talked a friend who owns a meridian transport into me blind testing him against a cheap pany, he only got 4 out 10 attempts correct when he didn't know what was being used as the source. This was quite upsetting for the chap, but amusingly enough he proudly proclaimed that the meridian sounded better as soon as he knew what the source was. Hmm me thinks its all in the mind, but hey thats a choice some may choose to make even knowingly.

Using the meridian analogue outs the sound was markedly better, as you would expect.

Active Member

not trying to argue but have a bit of data for you, tried using a PC+CDROM to measure error rate (CDROM drive ~=20 quid!), basically out of 1/2 hour of reading data from a disk I only got a single bit of error i.e. 1 in ~3e9 bits, and havent manged to get one since, so actual statistical error rate is probably lower. So basically wrt to our previous conversation I don't think any audible difference between transports can be as a result of error rate.

Distinguished MemberAVForums Sponsor

I managed to correctly identify two DVD transports 3 out of three times. They were ARCAM and Meridians. I doubt either yours or mine could be considered statistically accurate tests. I know what I heard. It was a blind dem for me as well in a system I was not that familier with.